Keith v. United States, 16740.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 16740.,16740. |
| Citation | 250 F.2d 355 |
| Parties | Robert W. KEITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
H. E. Tarpley, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
William N. Hamilton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minor Morgan, Dallas, Tex., Heard L. Floore, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
From a conviction under 26 U.S.C.A. § 5621 for failure to make entries on a daily commercial record (Treasury Form 52-B) required by 26 U.S.C.A. § 5114(a) in connection with the sale of two cases of distilled spirits to an undercover agent posing as an Oklahoma bootlegger, the appellant asserts that the Court erred in four respects: (1) in receiving evidence of prior incidents of false entries showing sales to fictitious nonexistent purchasers; (2) in allowing the agent to testify that in their investigation others had stated to them that they had never heard or knew of these fictitious persons; (3) in holding that the statute covered a single entry, not entries; (4) in failing to sustain a plea of entrapment as a matter of law.
Since the failure to make the entry must be willful, i.e., not merely inadvertent or negligent, Brink v. United States, 6 Cir., 148 F.2d 325, intent was crucial. Proof of false entries in 109 prior incidents in which purchasers were listed by fictitious names was relevant to establish intent, motive, design, purpose and practice as the effect and purpose of the two acts (failure to make entries or making false entries) is the same — to create an incorrect and unreliable record for the Government's use. Such evidence is admissible for that purpose. Lindsey v. United States, 5 Cir., 227 F.2d 113, 117; Ehrlich v. United States, 5 Cir., 238 F.2d 481, 484, and its use does not make it a trial and conviction for offenses not charged. In view of this, we need not determine whether, as claimed, this evidence came in out of turn as an unauthorized anticipation by the Government of a plea of entrapment.
To prove that in the 109 incidents of sales in 23 cities and towns, the entries falsely listed a fictitious purchaser, the agent testified that in his investigation in each city he checked with the police department, the sheriff's office, public utilties, chamber of commerce, telephone and business directories and talked to local residents, but he was unable to find or locate any one of them, or learn from any source that such person was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hattaway v. United States
...and an end in and of itself10 as we have many times held. See Fulford v. Forman, 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 145, 149; Keith v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 355, 357; Florida Citrus Exchange v. Folsom, 5 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 850, 857. Finally, in terms of familiar canons, it is urged th......
-
Az v. Shinseki
...of such a transaction between specified dates, no such transaction occurred between those dates.”) (emphasis added); Keith v. United States, 250 F.2d 355, 356 (5th Cir.1957) (holding that an agent's testimony that “he checked with the police department, the sheriff's office, public utilitie......
-
U.S. v. Lee
...McClanahan v. United States, 292 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1961), Cert. denied, 368 U.S. 913, 82 S.Ct. 193, 7 L.Ed.2d 130; Keith v. United States, 250 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1957); Nichols v. United States, 48 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 7 We note that there may have been a problem with the foundation requireme......
-
United States v. De Georgia
...Fourth Circuit: Veneri v. Draper, 22 F.2d 33 (1927); Fifth Circuit: McClanahan v. United States, 292 F.2d 630 (1961); Keith v. United States, 250 F.2d 355 (1958); Nichols v. United States, 48 F.2d 46 (1931). In McClanahan, the Fifth Circuit said: "* * * this, in fact, is frequently the only......